Photography-based taxonomy is inadequate, unnecessary, and potentially harmful for biological sciences

LUIS M. P. CERIACO; ELIECER E. GUTIERREZ; ALAIN DUBOIS; ABEL PÉREZ GONZÁLEZ

ZOOTAXA

MAGNOLIA PRESS

Lugar: Auckland; Año: 2016 vol. 4196 p. 435 - 445

1175-5326

In defense of a species description without preserved specimens, a few colleagues recently provided arguments that could lead to widespread use of photography-based taxonomy (PBT) (Pape et al. 2016). We 493 collection-based researchers refute these arguments.The main purpose of the Code?s Article 73.1.4?which tolerates the naming of species described based on illustrations?is to allow the nomenclatural availability of species names established without reference specimens before the maturity of taxonomy. However, modern descriptions shouldn?t be done without material evidence through at least one museum ?type? specimen, carrying many characters that cannot be seen on photographs and enabling objectivity, replicability and refutability. Species delimitation is a matter of taxonomy, not of nomenclature, but taxonomic work requires such a specimen to make an objective link between a name and a natural population, without which the allocation of the name remains uncertain.Alleged species known only from photographs can be referred to by non-scientific names until the collection of a specimen enables acceptable taxonomic descriptions.Peer-review, which is not required by the Code, may indeed be useful for taxonomic works if carried out by competent referees, but it has repeatedly proved insufficient to prevent flawed descriptions. PBT will promote rapid dissemination of poorly reviewed descriptions based on unverifiable ?evidence?.PBT is detrimental for fields of biology that depend on taxonomy: impeding approval of permits to collect?a strong nuisance for taxonomy; harming the credibility of and obstructing advances in taxonomy, as untrained/unscrupulous persons can easily flood life ?catalogues? with dubious taxa; increasing instability and inaccuracy, as scrutiny is hindered by the lack of specimens. The Code must be reformed to prevent that Articles designed to deal with contributions from the early ages of taxonomy are used to justify outdated practices that can harm science and biodiversity conservation.